In this blog post, we will examine whether the emergence of a criminal is due to genetic factors, environmental influences, or a combination of both, drawing on various studies and case studies.
Everyone eventually faces death. However, some are murdered. Murder cases are a topic that easily captures viewers’ attention in the news. Even if the story involves someone with whom we have no direct connection, or if the incident occurred in a region completely unrelated to us, the fact that someone has been murdered—whether within the same space of South Korea or, more broadly, on this planet—causes us to pause in our tracks and lend an ear. Moreover, if the incident is perceived to have even the slightest connection to us, our interest and concern will only intensify.
In one corner of the world, new life is born every day. Conversely, in another corner, life is extinguished. While there may be many reasons for a person’s death, the most tragic and infuriating of all is death by murder.
So let’s think about this for a moment. It is difficult to fully grasp every single incident occurring around the world, but what if we take a closer look at the situation right here in South Korea? How many people are murdered in South Korea each day? According to statistics, approximately 1,100 homicides occur annually. Dividing this by 365 days reveals an average of about three cases per day—meaning three people lose their lives to murder every single day. With a population of about 50 million, three people a day might not seem like much, but if you consider that one of those three could be you, how terrifying does that reality feel?
When we hear news of a murder, we are overcome with various thoughts. The most common reactions are, first, sympathy for the victim, and second, anger toward the perpetrator.
Now, let’s consider a single murder case. Once we know who killed whom, we arrive at the most important question: “Why?” Why was that person killed? It could have been a spontaneous murder resulting from a conflict or argument, or a premeditated murder driven by a desire for revenge. Sometimes, as in random killings or serial murders where unrelated people are indiscriminately killed, the reasons can be varied. Ordinary people like us feel both fear and anger toward such incidents. And we tend to focus more on what punishment the murderer should receive rather than on the specifics of their situation.
However, there are also those who take an interest in the inner workings of these murderers, their circumstances, and the background of the crime. Their research marked the beginning of neurocriminology, and they discovered some astonishing facts. We have generally believed that the causes of someone becoming a murderer stem from social and environmental factors. Consequently, the treatment and prevention of crime have primarily been approached from these social and environmental perspectives. But neurocriminology fundamentally shakes up this existing paradigm.
Adrian Lane, a world-renowned authority on neurocriminology and author of *The Anatomy of Violence*, explains this field as follows: “Some people are born criminals!” This provocative and shocking statement caused a huge ripple, much like a stone thrown into calm waters.
The claim that a criminal is determined from birth has actually been discussed in detail since the 1870s, but it did not gain traction at the time. However, with advances in science and technology and the emergence of new research methods, attempts to find the causes of violence from a new perspective are once again gaining prominence.
For example, Jeffrey Landrigan of the United States was abandoned at a nursery at the age of eight months in 1962.
Fortunately, he was adopted into a family with a geologist father and a loving mother, where he received a good education and strict upbringing, allowing him to make a fresh start. Despite this, Landrigan fell into alcohol and drugs as a minor, frequently committing theft, and eventually murdered a friend at the age of 20. After escaping from prison, he committed another murder and was sentenced to death. While incarcerated, Landrygan happened to learn of a man who looked exactly like him—a murderer named Darren Hill—who, surprisingly, turned out to be his biological father. Furthermore, it was revealed that Landrygan’s grandfather was also a criminal.
Darren Hill says: “Even if you’re not a smart person, if crime repeats itself over three generations, you can see there’s some connection. There’s a pattern.”
Hearing this makes one wonder if there might be such a thing as a “murderer’s gene.” It is entirely reasonable to question whether what turns a person into a criminal is linked not only to social and environmental factors but also to biological genetics.
We generally believe that people are born with their own reasons for living and have been taught that we are beings who seek the meaning and purpose of life. But what if someone were to say, “You were born with a killer’s genes”? How shocking would that be? Or if a person were to learn that their brain scan resembles that of a killer, what would they think?
Neurocriminology does not predict or claim that “because you have the genes of a murderer, you will commit murder.” Rather, it warns that when individuals with antisocial or abnormal genes or brain structures are exposed to adverse social and environmental factors, they may be more prone to antisocial behavior than the general population.
In fact, neurocriminologists have substantiated this through various statistical data. For example, if the prefrontal cortex of the brain is less active than in normal individuals, leading to dysfunction, a person may be unable to control instinctive emotions such as anger, take on higher risks, and exhibit lower accountability, thereby increasing the likelihood of rule-breaking behavior. Consequently, individuals are affected in multiple ways—emotionally, behaviorally, personality-wise, socially, and cognitively. This does not mean that brain imaging techniques alone can instantly determine who is normal and who is a murderer. Furthermore, it goes without saying that even normal people can occasionally exhibit antisocial violence. However, we can gather sufficient evidence to identify which brain functions, when dysfunctional, lead to increased violence.
The emergence of neurocriminology could have a significant impact on our society. While it is generally assumed that a criminal’s story ends with imprisonment following punishment, this new field of study enables a deeper understanding of the occurrence and causes of crime. Ultimately, the ultimate goal of this approach is to find an answer to the question: “How can we prevent crime in the future?” With the development of neurocriminology, while we have previously focused primarily on improving social and environmental factors for the treatment and prevention of crime, we will now need to consider biological factors as well. This also suggests that current solutions are not significantly contributing to crime prevention and the prevention of recidivism.
In the future, advances in neurocriminology will enable us to preemptively identify high-risk individuals likely to engage in antisocial behavior through brain imaging, genetic analysis, and physical examinations. If such screenings were mandated at the national level, it would be possible to identify potential offenders with a high likelihood of committing crimes in advance. For example, a person with issues in the prefrontal cortex may not outwardly display those problems. If we can anticipate their potential to lose self-control and take careful measures through treatment and prevention, we could reduce the incidence of crime.
Neurocriminology argues that it is not simply biological factors that determine whether someone becomes a criminal, but rather that the probability of becoming a criminal increases when a person with biological deficits encounters adverse environmental factors. Therefore, while biological factors—whether innate or acquired—cannot be determined by the individual or their parents, environmental factors can be addressed differently. If parents recognize their child’s biological deficits and pay close attention to their upbringing and treatment, the probability of that child becoming a criminal will certainly decrease.
However, applying the advancements in neurocriminology to society requires careful consideration of various factors. In particular, if potential criminals are identified in advance, societal perception will emerge as the primary issue. While people with abnormalities in their brains or genes are more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior, they have not yet committed any crimes. In other words, labeling them as potential offenders could create social distance and lead to distrust from the general public. Furthermore, individuals notified of their status as potential offenders may, due to the stigma effect, refuse to accept the assessment and instead engage in behavior that runs counter to it. Such social issues can be particularly sensitive for young children and adolescents.
The human rights and privacy of potential offenders are also critical considerations. There is a need for discussion regarding whether the state can infringe upon the human rights of these individuals for the sake of public safety. How should we resolve the dilemma presented in the movie *Minority Report*: “You cannot punish someone who hasn’t broken the law. But you must stop those who are likely to break the law. Yet, the moment you stop them, the crime doesn’t happen”?
Brain science, which forms the foundation of neurocriminology, is currently being utilized in actual court proceedings. Brain imaging results can even influence sentencing. But let’s consider this: if a person commits a crime but possesses genes or brain defects that inherently predispose them to antisocial behavior, should their guilt be assessed differently than in typical cases? Is the argument that “It wasn’t the person’s fault—it was the genes. What could I have done?” truly valid?
The new direction proposed by neurocriminology certainly gives us hope for a world with less violence. However, much discussion is still needed before it can be practically applied to society. We must pay close attention to how neurocriminology can be utilized for crime prevention and punishment while overcoming its various limitations.
